There is a significant flaw (actually, there are many) in this survey: being socially liberal is frequently thought of as being "out there" - as actively promoting alternative social behavior; however, the opposite of that - not being "out there" and not actively promoting some alternative lifestyle - is not necessarily social conservativism; it could just as easily be classical liberalism - as in, it's none of your damned business and I'd prefer it if everyone else kept their private business private.
An easy example is that of the Log Cabin Republican's reaction to the steamy, stereotyped Obamacare ads pandering to gays: they don't want any of it because it pushes the image of all gay men as sex-crazed nutjobs who want to let it all hang out in public, and that simply is not so. Based on that, one would have to say that the Log Cabin Republicans are not exactly the most socially liberal of people; however, they're a far cry from being social conservatives simply because they reject the social liberalism implicit in those ads.
Furthermore, what matters is not so much one's social views, but whether one feels entitled to use the coercive power of the government to impose one's own social views on others without their consent. And quite frankly, way too many social conservatives end up claiming to want to do precisely that, especially when it comes to the federal government (which matters because there is simply no logical way to rationalize the view that the Constitution gives Congress the power to interfere broadly in social issues). Doing that not only makes you a hypocrite when it comes to criticizing liberals for acting outside the bounds of the Constitution, it also drives away a lot of people whose support - and votes - one desperately needs.
The Log Cabin Republicans are a perfect case in point. When a social conservative politician start frothing at the mouth about "bleep" and "bleep" and how they would do anything at all to stop "gay marriage" if elected to federal office, then any member of the LCR would be absolutely justified in outright rejecting that person because of the clearly implied, if not outright expressed, threat to use the coercive power of the federal government to destroy that person's private life, no matter how far out of the public eye they kept it. And that's an extremely stupid thing to do because the LCR definitely value the core American principles of individual liberty and free market economics and are - or would be - valuable allies in combatting, and defeating, the statist collectivism the democrats/liberals want to shackle everyone with.
Basically, one of the big problems with many social conservatives is that they give only lip service to the fundamental value of individual liberty and freedom while all the time threatening to use the coercive force of the government to undermine and destroy the liberty and freedom of those whose private lives they, the social conservatives, find abhorrent.
Until and unless social conservatives can start giving more than lip service to the values of individual liberty and freedom, they will continue to be more of a burden than a benefit to the GOP.